Vietnam II?

...gas prices are higher than they've ever been, and Iraqi locals are killing each other all over the place.

Furthermore, after we unambiguously WON the Gulf War in '92, the terrorists did follow us over here, managing to attack the World Trade Center twice. So whether we stay there and lose or withdraw and lose, it seems about the same.

As for "tieing them up with minutia", why not try that? God knows it hasn't gone well the otherwise.

I don't believe we are losing. But, do you really believe what you just wrote? That losing with your tail between your legs is the same as losing on your feet?

Gas prices – I don’t know how old you are, so I don’t know if you remember the 70s. There’s high, and then there's HIGH!!!! I doubt they are higher now than they have ever been, not as a percentage of income. I moan when I look at the prices today, but there aren’t lines going around the corner, restrictions on pumping on days when your lic place no. coincides w the day of the week, only being allowed so many gal.s at a time, only being permitted when your gauge is below 1/4 tank, etc. Today’s prices are a result of normal supply-demand conditions, not OPEC blackmail. You can thank Reagan for that.

Iraqi locals killing each other – will that stop if we leave? or will it get worse? Read your Vietnam history. It’s really that important.

I still can’t believe any American who loves his country would say ‘let’s try tying up our military and see if that works’ That’s like a liberal with an “I support the troops” sticker.

Serious question. We're both looking at the same news reports.

It's hard for me to see victory on the horizon in that country because I'm not sure why we went in, and how we will define victory when it occurs. We win if we acheive our goals. What are they?

I was being glib when I used (well, quoted back) the phrase "tieing their hands." But let me quote Robert Gates: "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact…in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment." I'd like to think that our Defense Secretary wouldn't embolden the enemy. A timeline is necessary if we want the Iraquis to stand up.

Finally, a word about OPEC - withdrawing or staying won't break their hold on oil prices. Developing alternative sources of energy will. That, my friend, is economics.

(Oh, and since you ask I'm 46, but I write younger. It's the arrested development factor.)

- That’s what I hear regularly from US soldiers fresh from Iraq. Not all, mind you, but about 25 to 1 say we’re winning
- I don't believe everything I read or see on TV. I’ve seen too many nightly news reports on events that I personally witnessed earlier in the day. Huge reality gap.
- We clearly have Military superiority; bombs, boots, etc.
- We kill more bad guys then they kill good guys. Sometimes 100 to 1.
- We have won every skirmish and battle there in the M.E. thus far.

It should frustrate both of us that our military can win every battle, but lose the war because of our lack of will here at home. They are not demoralized. Why should we be?

This is how we lost Vietnam. This is why I want you on my side, pk: the US Military won every battle in S.E. Asia, but we lost here at home: in Hollywood, Washington, the Bay Area, newsrooms and universities. Our military is winning this one over there in the M.E. too, like they did in Vietnam. We don't have to lose this war over here if you don't want to.

We got into this war because of 9-11. We ignored terror for a long time, but after 9-11, we had to take it seriously. First Osama, then the Taliban, then Saddam (OK, 2 out of three ain’t bad). But we are there because Islamic terrorists attacked us.

Timetables: I can go w the delicate balance between getting the Iraqis up-to-speed faster, but ooo what a balance. Just a smidge too far and our enemies will say, “You see – there they go…!” Can you give me a historical example of when one side told their enemies when they’re going to cry Uncle?

OPEC – they way to avoid the stranglehold is to make friends with the good M.E. leaders and help them stay in power. That’s what Reagan did, and that’s why Carter couldn't control it. When I say ‘good ones’ I'm referring to M.E. leaders who can tolerate a planet with people of other religions.

Alternate energy – there must be a bunch of scientists at MIT who agree with you. Why aren't they making it and marketing it? Or are you talking about Alaska? I'm with you on Alaska! Let’s drill it!

It’s nice corresponding w you, pk – you make me think! Thanks!

I'll only take issue with one comment:

"But we are there because Islamic terrorists attacked us."

I'll kind of buy that for Afghanistan, because the specific Islamic terrorists that attacked us were said to be based there. For Iraq, it's an absurd argument. Nobody is saying that 9/11 had any connection to Iraq. So for us to be there would be like Eliot Ness jailing Enrico Caruso because an Italian was running the mob.

Your response made me laugh! Thanks!

I can appreciate your feeling on Iraq. That’s not an illogical objection. However, here's why I think it’s incorrect:

No one is saying that 9/11 had any connection to Iraq—not even me! Notice I did not say we are at war WITH Iraq – because we are not. We are at war IN Iraq against forces that want to kill us. The Afghan govt. did not attack us on 9-11 either. A faction of Islam did, and the Taliban govt harbored them. We attacked them for not handing them over. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Taliban were still in power today had they handed over Osama in a big gift basket of fruit and a Hallmark card.

Saddam would still be in power today too, if he allowed UN inspectors to do a real investigation. I think he didn’t let them because he thought he had weapons. I can imagine a bunch of Iraqi scientists, unable to get the materiel to build the bomb Saddam wants, sitting around in a circle saying, ‘ok – who wants to tell the big guy we cant do it...?’ Instead, they probably just mocked-up evidence for Saddam—banking that he wouldn't know what a real nuke looks like if he saw one. It probably had lots of blinking lights on it too, for verisimilitude :-D

So I think (according to some expert hypothesis floating around) Saddam acted like he had weapons because he really THOUGHT he had weapons. And when he thought he had them, he acted like he had them. And when he acted like he had them, WE thought he had them.

Let me analogize – since as you know, that is my way: Before last Monday, say some nut at Brigham Young U. writes creepy and grotesque stage plays; if he’s a real nut, people will watch him, but no one will attack him. After last Monday, you know the FBI already has his computer, cell ph records and has emptied his toothpaste looking for clues. And it would be justified; even if he was just that—a nut looking for macabre attention.

I think of Iraq/Afghan the same way. Lots of nuts make threats, and in a (relatively) small way some made good on them. After 9-11, we simply don't take chances anymore. I think what happened in Iraq is Saddam’s own fault. And if anyone else goes down that path, I believe we simply have to do it again rather than take the chance they’re just bluffing.